The corrected rendering of chapter 1:9 seems not only clumsy, but so ambiguous that many readers will doubt or misunderstand what the Revisers really mean by it. “There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.” If the comma after “man” is intended to sever “coming into the world” from “man,” and to connect the phrase as a predicate with the true light or the relative that follows, it is all well; but is not so slight an intimation likely to be misapprehended? This at any rate, if so meant, aims at the true sense. John was not the light in question. The true light was that which lightens every man, not absolutely nor always, but on coming into the world. It is the character or effect of the Incarnation. The Authorized Version is unquestionably incorrect, besides giving a tautological meaning if the article could be dispensed with. Further to be a man, and to come into the world, are said to be equivalent in Rabbinical usage. But does any Rabbi add íÈãÈà to íÈìÊåò? It is not correct. They may employ “those that come into the world” to express “all men;” but where do they employ both phrases “every man coming into the world,” as John is presumed to say here? The truth is that in one form or another ὁ ἐρχόμενος regularly applies to the Lord Jesus, as in chapter 1:15, 27; 3:31 (his), as also in Matt. 11:33And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? (Matthew 11:3); Luke 7:19, 2019And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? 20When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? (Luke 7:19‑20); yet more fully and definitely ὁ ἐρχόμενος John 6:14,14Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. (John 6:14) where it would be idle to take it for any man as such, and not as appropriated to the Messiah. (Cf. 11:27.) It would be well also to note chapter 3:19; 9:39; 12:46; 16:28; 18:37. These instances ought to leave no doubt in any careful mind that our evangelist habitually uses the phrase of Christ to the exclusion of every other, it must be connected here not with π. ἄνθρωπον, but with τὸ φῦς τὸ ἀλ. The nearest approach is chapter xvi. 21, which is pointedly different, not to speak of any ulterior mystery in its figure.
It is surprising under such circumstances that the Five Clergymen should say it is impossible to determine with certainty whether the particle ἐρχόμενον is to be taken with φῶς or with ἦν in the nominative ease neuter, or with ἄνθρωπον in the masculine accusative. They, too, while adopting the same sense as the Authorized Version, strive not to exclude a quite different reference, the converse of the Revisers,
But if the Revisers intended in their text to convey that Christ is the true light which coming into the world lighteth every man, they give in the margin, “The true light, which lighteth every man, was coming” into the world: a rendering grammatically possible, though not probable, but contextually excluded by the verse following which speaks of the Lord in immediate connection as in the world, and not to come, or in mere process of coming. Next, the margin adds another alternative, indicative of the uncertainty of the Revisers, “every man as he cometh.” But is this serious? It is no question of a reasonable soul or conscience, but of Christ the true light. Is it orthodox that Christ enlightens “every man as he cometh,” &c.? What do they suggest by it? What can any one infer but that, if this be true, Christ gives His own light to every man on his coming into the world? A doctrine less defensible and more unworthy than the delusion of every man's being born again by baptism. Here a signal spiritual blessing is bound up with every man's birth of nature. Would it not be nearer the truth of God to say that no man as he comes into the world is enlightened by Christ?
In result, then, we see that the Revisers reject apparently the Authorized Version, and give us in the text the right sense so obscurely that most readers will confound it with the only meaning meant to be shut out, while the margin gives the choice between a version possible and harmless, but quite unsuitable to the context, and another directly opposed to any creed in Christendom, unless it be that of Quakers. It is probably due to their adherence to the order of the Greek words that they have in the revised text left their meaning anything but clear and express. They have thus sacrificed their own principle not to leave any translation or arrangement of words which could adapt itself to one or other of two interpretations, but rather to express as plainly as possible that interpretation which seemed best to deserve a place.
They are also somewhat capricious in representing the article or the anarthrous construction. Thus in chapter 1:12 They say “the right to become children of God,” where they properly drop it before “children,” and needlessly insert it before “right.” They give us “a woman” in chapter 4:27, and “A servant” in chapter 13:16; but they do not say “the woman” in chapter 16:21, though they do say “the child,” whereas the one like the other is used generically, like “the bondservant” and “the son” in chapter 8:35.
Slight but generally accredited changes occur not seldom in chapters 1, 2, which call for no particular remark. In verse 11 of chapter 2 “signs” is rightly given, and throughout this Gospel, rather than “miracles;” but why should ἐξουσία be rendered “right” in chapter 1:12, “authority” in chapter 5:17, and “power” (margin, “right") in chapter 10:18?
In chapter 3:15 they adopt “believeth may in him have eternal life,” whilst in verse 16 they retain “believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.” It is a question of readings, and it cannot be doubted that they have good authority. In chapter 4:42 They properly, with all critics and on good grounds, discard “the Christ,” the true force being far clearer without that title; so do they, on ample authority, omit other additions of less moment.
But the omission of the last clause of verse 8, and the whole of verse 4 in chapter 5, is grave. No doubt a few of the oldest and best MSS and versions omit all or nearly all this portion. Still the unquestionable answer of the sufferer in verse 7 seems hardly compatible with the omission, which ancient rationalism might desire, as does the same spirit in our own day. There seems nothing unworthy of God in the omitted clause, while, on the contrary, what is there falls in with the scope of what is undoubted, if it be not requisite to give the full force. God under the law had not left Himself without witness of mercy; but sin wrought havoc, and strength was needed to avail oneself of any remedy afforded. What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, and so gave us deliverance. Jesus with a word heals the man whom no angel's help, no ordinance, could avail to meet.
In the body of the Lord's discourse, wherein He shows Himself the source of life now to faith, vindicated by the execution of judgment by-and-by, we have the Revisers very properly exhibiting “judgment” where the Authorized Version had “judgment,” “condemnation,” and “damnation.” (Vers. 22, 24, 27, 29.)
Chapter 6 affords many small points of correction as to which most are agreed; and so does chapter vii. But on these details there is little reason to dwell.
The most noteworthy and important omission is of course the end of chapter 7 and beginning of chapter 8 to verse 11 inclusively. Here confessedly most of the old uncials are adverse, and not a few versions are silent, as ancient commentators also. But it is painful to add that Augustine at an early day, and Nicon, an Armenian abbot of the tenth century, bear their distinct testimony to the subjective reasons which led to leaving out the story, even where it was well known to exist in the Gospel. Nothing on the other hand can account for its insertion if it were not the inspired word of God; and in no place does it fit in, spite of strong and repeated efforts to dislodge it, save as the fact introductory to the discourse of our Lord in this chapter. The internal objections to the style or language are as weak as those alleged against Mark 16:9-209Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. (Mark 16:9‑20). The words, which viewed superficially afford occasion, turn out when duly weighed to be powerful evidences of their own genuineness as well as authenticity; as is indeed the case invariably with true scripture for all who value the truth.
But there is a difficulty of translation in the central part of this chapter which should not be lightly passed over. The Jews say to the Lord (ver. 25), “Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning,” τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι καὶ λαλῦ ὑμῖν, such is the Revisers' translation and Mr. Palmer's text, pretty much as the Authorized Version, “even the same that I said unto you from the beginning." It is the more strange, as Tyndale followed by Cranmer had rendered it not only in better keeping with the context but with less violence to grammatical propriety: “Even the very same thing that I saye (C. speake) unto you.” The Geneva Version introduced the error which still taints the Revision: “Even the very same thing that I sayde unto you from the begynnyng,” which rendering appears to give a twofold meaning to τὴν ἀρχήν, besides that one of these meanings leads to the violation of the time of the verb. This the Five Clergymen seek to avoid in “That which I also say unto you from the beginning." But even if this were otherwise allowable, how can τὴν ἀρχήν=ἐξ (or ἀπ’) ἀρχῆς? It is common enough to see ἀρχήω or ἀρχάς, with or without κατά, in the sense of at first, in the beginning, to begin with; and no doubt the assumption that so it means here gave occasion to “I said” or “I have spoken” as the rendering of λαλῶ). Were all this permissible and feasible, where is the propriety of the sense that results? Plato's Lysis (recogn. Baiter. Orell. & Wink. 367, col. 2) proves that it is too hasty to say that the phrase cannot mean absolutely, altogether, save in negative and quasi-negative sentences; and Elsner adds a few more occurrences in later Greek. This alone gives a worthy meaning: “Who art thou? Absolutely what I am also speaking to you.” Jesus is the Word, the Truth: what He speaks corresponds wholly with His being. He is what He says, as none other: not only the truth in itself, but precisely what comes out from first to last in this chapter, where He first acts as the light, then reveals Himself as such, and shows that He is the truth, the Son, and finally God, the Eternal One: before Abraham was (γενέσθαι) I am (ἐγώ εἰμι).
There is little calling for notice in the Company's work on chapter 9 save the reception of ἡμᾶς “us” in verse 4 instead of the first “me” without even a caution in the margin. Also they might have avoided both text and marginal alternative of chapter 10:2 by giving simply “is shepherd of the sheep.” It is not often perhaps that English answers to the anarthrous Greek without the definite, or even the indefinite, article; but here it seems to be unequivocally preferable. They have adopted a better text than the Received in verse 4: “When he hath put forth all his own,” reading “all” and dropping “sheep.” So in verses 14, 15, they have given the undoubtedly requisite correction on good authority, which beautifully connects the two verses now severed;} excluding the gross blunder of “fold” instead of “flock” for ποιμνἠ in verse 16, where Tyndale was right. To verse 29 it seems rather surprising they should, have deemed it advisable to give in the margin, “That which my Father hath given unto me,” even though read by some ancient authorities, seeing that this is not really “greater than all,” and that it also wholly breaks the context. No doubt Tischendorf, Tregelles and Alford adopt this unreasonable variation; but, strange to say, Dr. S. Davidson, who translates the text of the first, follows the ordinary readings here, and so does the last in his revised New Testament. And is there not a purposed omission of the object in both parts of the verse, which should be heeded by the translator instead of supplying “them” twice, as the Revisers do? The omission gives force to the gift, and strongly negatives wresting out of the Father's hand. Minor points may be left.
In chapter 11 nothing appears to detain us.
In chapter 12 why not “the” grain of wheat, as they themselves give “the” mountain, “the” rock, “the” bushel, “the” lampstand, “the” sower, “the” basin, “the” sop, &c.?
Nor is there in chapter 13 anything special to notice, “during supper” being certainly the true force of δείπνου γιν., not “supper being ended.” Even if ger. (A D and a dozen uncials more, and almost all cursives, &c.) be read, it would mean “supper being come.”
In chapter 14:23 they of course give “my word,” not “words;” on 15 and 16 we need not dwell.
In chapter 17:4 “having accomplished” is well known to rest on excellent authority, but differs very slightly in sense from the more general text; so in verse 11, “keep them in thy name which” is accepted ordinarily instead of the common reading. Surely it would have been better in verse 16 to have adhered to the emphatic Greek order, “Of the world they are not,” as compared with the same words in verse 14. In verse 19 they say “sanctified in truth,” rightly omitting the article, as others did before them. They drop ἐν,"one in us,” verse 21, and read in their text of verse 24, “ὄ, that which,” instead of “οὕς, those whom” (of. John 6:37, 3937All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37)
39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. (John 6:39)), only that in the earlier chapter each form is used distinctly, not blended, as they would be here were the critical reading accepted as certain.
In the four closing chapters are corrections of slight blemishes in the common text, but happily nothing of sufficient moment to call for remark. “Simon, son of John” rather than Jonas, as in chapter L 42. “perceivest” is a poor alternative in the margin for “knowest,” γινώσκεις as compared with οἶδας.